[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 39 (Wednesday, April 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
            THE TERM LIMIT MOVEMENT AND CONGRESSIONAL CHANGE

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 13, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, April 6, 1994 into the Congressional Record:

       In recent years public confidence in the performance of 
     government has been undermined because of various scandals 
     and a lack of progress on the budget deficit and other 
     pressing national problems. This public frustration has 
     fueled the movement to limit the terms of legislators at the 
     state and national level. Starting with Colorado in 1990, 
     voters began to approve state initiatives to impose term 
     limits on Members of the U.S. Congress. The movement picked 
     up steam in 1992 when voters in each of the 14 states with 
     congressional term limits on the ballot approved them, often 
     by overwhelming margins.
       The Constitutional Debate: The 1992 victories spurred on 
     both proponents and opponents of term limits for Members of 
     Congress. Opponents immediately launched constitutional 
     challenges in court. They argue that the Constitution 
     specifies only three qualifications (age, citizenship, and 
     state residency) for becoming a Member of Congress, thus 
     prohibiting states from imposing other qualifications on 
     candidates. Opponents believe that the only way to impose 
     term limits would be through a constitutional amendment 
     rather than through state law.
       Proponents of term limits, on the other hand, believe that 
     states can impose such limits, citing the Constitution's 
     provisions allowing states to regulate the ``times, places, 
     and manner'' of elections. Many such state regulations, which 
     can have the effect of imposing qualifications on candidates, 
     have been upheld by court rulings.
       Thus far, the opponents of term limits have won the major 
     court battles. Term limits in Arkansas and Washington state 
     have been ruled unconstitutional, in separate cases by the 
     Arkansas Supreme Court and a federal court. It is likely that 
     one of the challenges will be appealed to the Supreme Court. 
     Indeed, the constitutional issues are gray, and a Court 
     ruling would be helpful. The worst result would be to have a 
     patchwork of state restrictions, with some states limiting 
     terms and others not. Power in Congress, which is tied to 
     seniority, would then be completely skewed.
       Arguments Against Term Limits: In my view, regardless of 
     the constitutional arguments, the risks of term limits 
     outweigh the possible benefits. Mandatory turnover in 
     congressional membership will do little to resolve the real 
     problems the country faces, and may in fact compound them by 
     undermining democratic choice and the representative process.
       Dissatisfaction with a Congress that has not always 
     performed satisfactorily does not justify removing all 
     Members of Congress, the good as well as the bad, after a 
     certain number of years. Not does it justify denying the 
     people their choice of representative. This republic has been 
     well served since its birth by the belief that accountability 
     in elected officials should be enforced by voters through the 
     requirement of frequent elections. Many of our most revered 
     and respected politicians served for many years. Why should 
     voters be denied the right to return those who have 
     maintained their public trust? That is why I have also 
     opposed term limits on presidents. Term limits dilute the 
     fundamental responsibility of citizenship to decide who will 
     govern.
       Those favoring term limits seem to believe that experience 
     is a virtue in almost any profession except that of 
     legislator. Moving legislation is a tough, exacting task. It 
     requires not only a knowledge of issues but a keen judgment 
     of individuals and the ability to find areas of compromise on 
     widely varying positions. Experience will likely be needed 
     even more in the future, with the dizzying pace and 
     complexity of the world and the nature of governance in a $6 
     trillion economy. Even voters in states approving term limits 
     seem to acknowledge the value of experience. The voters in 
     the 14 states that imposed term limits also returned nearly 
     90% of the Members of Congress running for reelection who had 
     served longer than the limits the voters wanted to impose.
       One unintended consequence of term limits is that by 
     decreasing the number of experienced legislators they 
     increase the power of legislative staff, lobbyists, and 
     bureaucrats. Power does not simply evaporate; it flows 
     somewhere else. Term limits would also tilt the balance of 
     the constitutional system even more in favor of the 
     executive. It is hard to imagine a greater advantage for a 
     president than to purge Congress of experienced legislators 
     who are specialists in issues, who understand the workings of 
     government, and who remember the problems of the past.
       Some argue that Congress with a continuing flow of fresh 
     ideas would result in better government than that provided by 
     representatives with long tenure. The other argument is that 
     experience is an important characteristic for legislators. 
     Each viewpoint probably has some validity, but the best 
     solution is to allow the voters to determine the proper 
     balance between freshness and experience.
       Congressional Change: A misperception about congressional 
     turnover underlies much of the term limits debate. Most 
     Americans believe that Congress has a fixed, long-standing 
     membership, when in fact turnover is quite rapid. 75% of 
     House members have been elected since 1980. 400 out of 435 
     House members have been elected since the Watergate break-in.
       The 1992 elections produced 110 new Representatives, one 
     quarter of the membership. The 1994 elections are shaping up 
     to be a near repeat of 1992--retirements are close to the 
     1992 pace and many members are facing competitive races. The 
     odds are that when the 1994 elections are over, more than 
     half of the House will have been elected in the 1990s.
       Conclusion: The frustrations with Congress that motivated 
     the term limits movement are understandable. Certainly 
     Congress must do a better job of solving the problems that 
     foster public anger and distrust, and some progress has been 
     made recently in ending legislative gridlock. In addition, 
     competitive elections are more important than arbitrary 
     limits on service. Giving priority to campaign finance 
     reforms and increased voter registration and turnout would 
     benefit and political process far more than a potentially 
     counterproductive change in our Constitution.
       I believe we have to protect the fundamental right of the 
     voters to choose those who govern them. I think that term 
     limits, by weakening the power of the legislative branch, 
     injure the republic. The fight for term limitation distracts 
     attention from the search for answers to serious problems 
     facing the country.

                          ____________________